Affordances of Virtual Worlds and Virtual Reality for STEM Project-Based Learning PDF

Chapter 11 Affordances of Virtual Worlds and Virtual Reality to Support STEM Project-Based Learning Trina J. Davis Monica Hernandez Valencia Department of Teaching, Learning & Culture Department of Teaching, Learning & Culture Texas A&M University...

Chapter 11 Affordances of Virtual Worlds and Virtual Reality to Support STEM Project-Based Learning Trina J. Davis Monica Hernandez Valencia Department of Teaching, Learning & Culture Department of Teaching, Learning & Culture Texas A&M University Texas A&M University Virtual learning is more widely available now than ever before with the continued development and reach of virtual worlds and virtual reality technology alongside increased broadband internet access for students and classrooms. The COVID-19 pandemic put on full display the need to make engaging learning situated in real-world problems accessible through online or remote formats not only for traditionally unable to attend in-person learning but for all students. This sudden and profound shift in learning needs proved difficult, and many science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) instructors found it challenging to implement impactful hands-on learning, including project-based learning (PBL), remotely. The reality is, however, that STEM PBL is not limited to in-person settings nor does it require real- world objects even if it engages students with real-world problems. Virtual worlds and virtual reality provide environments in which students can engage in STEM PBL, and they have the potential to allow students to do so more ethically and more deeply than in-person learning environments. Affordances of Virtual Worlds & Virtual Reality 193  Chapter Outcomes When you complete this chapter, you should better understand and be able to explain the differences between virtual worlds and virtual reality and their applications in teaching STEM how teachers and students engage with virtual learning settings the affordances of using virtual worlds and virtual reality to support STEM PBL When you complete this chapter, you should be able to explicate background perspectives on virtual world and virtual reality utilization in STEM learning and teaching identify illustrative examples of virtual world and virtual reality projects locate resources for implementing STEM PBL in virtual spaces Chapter Overview We begin this chapter by explaining the benefits of PBL in STEM learning and contend that virtual settings provide an ideal space to implement STEM PBL. We then describe how virtual environments support PBL objectives and goals. Following this, we provide in detail the unique advantages of situating learning in both virtual worlds and virtual reality and give examples of how PBL may be supported in these learning environments. Indisputably, it is well documented that effectual engagement of students in STEM learning is critically important. In 1997, Seymour and Hewitt wrote Talking About Leaving: Why Undergraduates Leave the Sciences. They highlighted several factors that included “poor teaching, curriculum overload, inadequate advising and support, and rejection of the highly competitive culture these students encountered in their major” (Bressoud, 2020, p. 1375). In the long- awaited follow-up study and subsequent book Talking About Leaving Revisited: Persistence, Relocation, and Loss in Undergraduate STEM Education (TALR), published in 2019, Seymour and Hunter discussed key findings from the five-year national study. Among other things, authors explored contributory causes for STEM students switching fields as well as factors that enabled their persistence to graduation (Seymour & Hunter, 2019; Harper et al., 2019). Bressoud, in his review of TALR, summarizes, “poor quality STEM teaching, particularly in introductory courses, still tops the list of student concerns” (2020, p. 1378). The findings from the TALR study also included an instructive discussion of how students defined “good” STEM teaching, where delivery was engaging, and included interactive and inquiry-based learning. Students, especially women, reported encountering these more active forms of instruction and recounted that these approaches improved their understanding of concepts, increased their interest in 194 Affordances of Virtual Worlds & Virtual Reality materials, and facilitated making connections between ideas (Bressoud, 2020, p. 1378). This was a departure from the 1997 study findings. To address the challenges outlined in TALR, particularly those related to teaching or curriculum and student engagement, two prominent and immediate needs appear to bubble to the top from our perspective. First, students must be immersed in authentic, real-world, and inquiry-based projects that actively engage them in mathematics and science learning. In this vein, scholars uphold the STEM PBL tenet that integrating engineering design principles into K–16 curriculum can enhance real-world applicability (Capraro & Slough, 2008). Second, the combination of deep content knowledge and engaging pedagogical approaches, as well as a thorough understanding of diverse learners, are necessary for preparing teachers to close the achievement gaps in STEM. Exploring new ways to prepare teachers to engage all students in active and effective learning experiences in STEM offers promise in addressing these parallel needs. Moreover, the utilization of technologies like virtual reality and virtual worlds can provide an engaging space to support both STEM-focused PBL, and STEM teacher development, in new ways. We advance that when students are immersed in authentic real-world projects that actively engage them, deeper learning can occur (Scheurich & Higgins, 2008), along with a host of other benefits. This belief is at the core of making the case for PBL. Capraro and Slough (2008) frame STEM PBL approaches eloquently in their discussions on the design of PBL lessons. They remind us that STEM PBL lessons, particularly the examples highlighted in this book, all start with a well-defined outcome. They also remind us that ill-defined tasks are essential to the inquiry process in PBL. It is our belief, and we will attempt to offer some support through related scholarship and illustrative examples, that the affordances of virtual worlds and virtual reality can provide a rich backdrop for STEM PBL. Background on Simulations and Virtual Environments Three-dimensional (3D) virtual learning environments (VLEs), like the virtual world of Second Life (SL), are available and can support STEM learning and teacher preparation in emergent ways. Innumerable concepts and essential competencies that are foundational across various STEM fields require unique understandings. Mishra et al. (2020), in a paper adapted from Kereluik et al. (2013), presented a framework (i.e., 3 x 3 Model of 21st-Century Learning) that describes “what knowledge is of most worth in the 21st century” (p. 3). Kereluik et al. (2013), in their analysis of key documents related to 21st century learning, converged onto three categories: foundational knowledge (to know), meta knowledge (to act), and humanistic knowledge (to value). The categories and sub-categories are outlined below: Affordances of Virtual Worlds & Virtual Reality 195 Table 1 The 3 x 3 Model of 21st-Century Learning (Kereluik et al., 2013) 21st Century Learning Foundational Knowledge Meta Knowledge Humanistic Knowledge (to know) (to act) (to value) Þ Core content knowledge Þ Problem solving & Þ Life skills, job skills & Þ Digital & information critical thinking leadership literacy Þ Communication & Þ Cultural competence Þ Cross-disciplinary collaboration Þ Ethical & emotional knowledge Þ Creativity & innovation awareness Mishra et al. (2020) argue that the categories and sub-categories that comprise this knowledge framework are not independent of each other but rather should work in concert with each other, with a shifting of balance occurring among the categories as we seek to address complex problems. This model can provide a guiding framework for the design of STEM PBL. Moreover, we position that virtual worlds and VR provide an ideal canvas for learners to authentically develop foundational, meta, and humanistic knowledge as they engage in PBL. Looking back, simulations as a subset of computer-assisted learning have been around since the late 1980’s (e.g., SimCity; Wright, 1989). These earlier programs typically simulated real- life places and scenarios. They provided opportunities for learners to interact in environments even when they were not able to physically visit them. In this way, 3D virtual environments were an effective alternative and fostered experiential and situated learning approaches (Davis, 2014; Davis et al., 2018). In particular, similar attributes can be espoused for virtual world/reality-based environments. In the last decade and a half, virtual worlds like Second Life (launched in 2003), OpenSim (launched in 2007), and Active Worlds (launched in 1995) have been touted as technological and experiential applications that have the potential to impact how people communicate, socially network, play, work, and learn. Advances in educational theory and cognitive science mean more is understood about the process and impact of learning than ever before. Much of the work on learning in virtual worlds has been exploratory. Various applications of using Second Life as a learning space have been explored (Goodband et al., n.d.; Merchant et al., 2013; Merchant et al., 2014), and some suggest that even today, some seventeen years after its inception, the breadth of benefits have not fully been realized. It is also worth noting that Second Life has had ebbs and flows in terms of popular use and market penetration. Even today, one should not discount that Second Life might gain traction again. Perhaps it is a long shot, but we suggest that myriad needs and the recent, widespread move to online learning might stimulate renewed interest in Second Life. 196 Affordances of Virtual Worlds & Virtual Reality  Virtual World Affordances The literature on 3D VLEs brings to light the fact that researchers have differing perspectives on the characteristics and affordances of 3D VLEs (Mantziou et al., 2018). Hew and Cheung (2010) reviewed empirical research studies on the use of 3D immersive virtual worlds in K–12 and higher education settings and found that they were being utilized in three overarching ways: (1) communication spaces, (2) simulation of space (spatial), and (3) experiential spaces (“acting” on the world). All three utilizations have great potential for supporting STEM PBL. Dalgarno and Lee (2010), in their review of published research on applications of 3D VLEs spanning two decades, identified a series of learning affordances that include the following: Affordance 1: 3-D VLEs can be used to facilitate learning tasks that lead to the development of enhanced spatial knowledge representation of the explored domain (p.18). Affordance 2: 3-D VLEs can be used to facilitate experiential learning tasks that would be impractical or impossible to undertake in the real world (p.19). Affordance 3: 3-D VLEs can be used to facilitate learning tasks that lead to increased intrinsic motivation and engagement (p. 20). Affordance 4. 3-D VLEs can be used to facilitate learning tasks that lead to improved transfer of knowledge and skills to real situations through contextualization of learning (p. 21). Affordance 5: 3-D VLEs can be used to facilitate tasks that lead to richer and/or more effective collaborative learning than is possible with 2-D alternatives (p. 23). In their review of literature, Dalgarno and Lee reviewed a range of proposed and actual applications of 3D virtual environments for learning. The affordances identified represented the theoretical learning benefits of 3D VLEs that were explicitly and/or implicitly purported by the authors included in the analysis. Furthermore, Bell (2008) tried to synthesize all the elements of virtual worlds and came up with the comprehensive definition of a virtual world as “a synchronous persistent network of people represented as avatars, and facilitated by a network of computers” (p. 2). According to Caprotti and Seppala (2007), the design of 3D learning activities in the virtual world of Second Life is not hard, although activities that focus on modeling and working out mathematics problems may require different approaches or instructional planning. For example, various developments in SL, such as the extended use of displays that project an array of formats, including audio, video, and web-based media, and the availability of interactive pen displays (i.e., Smart Podium solutions) that work in concert with streaming applications, allow mathematics concepts, symbolic representations, and problems to be presented with greater ease (Davis, 2014). Affordances of Virtual Worlds & Virtual Reality 197 Slightly different from simulation, role-playing requires more specific concepts on interactive point of view for enhancing interpersonal relations and social transaction among individuals (Tompkins, 1998). Role-playing, as Scarcella and Oxford (1992) defined it, is acting out a character represented somehow by everyday life experiences. To achieve the goals for the target topics, the participant needs to follow the intended mission and responsibilities in order to immerse him/herself in situations directed toward the ultimate goals (Jones, 1982). In the next sections, we will highlight examples of STEM learning in virtual worlds and virtual reality and discuss ways that these spaces can support PBL. We also provide a brief discussion of virtual reality learning affordances. Virtual World Project Examples The affordances of using 3D VLEs to foster rich instructional settings have been briefly discussed in this chapter. Utilizing features of immersive 3D virtual worlds (and virtual reality) can support various learning outcomes and tasks in STEM PBL. Virtual world projects and simulations across STEM subjects are highlighted below. These projects help to illustrate two approaches—using virtual worlds to prepare STEM teachers and using virtual worlds to learn STEM content in highly participatory and immersive contexts. Second Life, an internet-based environment, allows its users to create digital self-representations (or avatars). Users (or learners) can interact in the environment in a number of ways (see Table 2). They have the ability to build 3D virtual objects, move the objects around, view them from all vantage points, or program the objects, as needed, to do a multitude of tasks. Immersive, hands-on PBL can be situated within a host of user-designed virtual simulations or spaces in Second Life (e.g., students can engage in PBL within a virtual scientific laboratory or testing center designed by a physics instructor). A variety of STEM PBL design and experimentation activities can take place that are not easily accessible by learners in face-to-face settings. Instructional designers and practitioners can expand the notion of “project” to include PBL lessons situated within VLEs. Through a wide array of STEM PBL designs, individual learners or design teams can become immersed in authentic real-world learning tasks, with an emphasis on making connections to what STEM professionals might do on the job (Capraro & Slough, 2008; Office of Educational Technology, 2018). As we will share later, virtual reality offers many of these similar enactments. Second Life makes possible high representational fidelity (Dalgarno & Lee, 2010) within authentic STEM learning tasks. Moreover, interdisciplinary groups of STEM experts can comprise PBL instructional design teams or serve in advisory roles. STEM PBL lessons can then be evaluated for authenticity. 198 Affordances of Virtual Worlds & Virtual Reality Table 2 Features of virtual worlds to support STEM PBL Sample Features of Virtual Worlds Possibilities to Support STEM PBL Learner has the ability to communicate or Communicate and collaborate with peers or experts work collaboratively with peers or experts (locally/globally) during all stages of the PBL activity Learner has the ability to examine and Engage in (3D) spatially and visually rich learning or manipulate 3D objects, zoom in and out on problem solving objects, move objects around; learner can investigate complex problems and issues Access and experience authentic places, simulations, Learner has the ability to intimately examine and objects in immersive environment. Learners 3D virtual objects and places (e.g., City of experience presence or co-presence in participatory Paris 3D Sim, Space Shuttle Simulations) virtual spaces they may not otherwise have access to Learner has the ability to engage in Engage in (unique) experimentation simulated innovative experimentation Learner has the ability to engage in role Engage in role-playing playing (with authentic, diverse teams or small/large collaborative groups) Learner has the ability to design 3D virtual Design and build in 3D spaces objects, inventions, buildings, or spaces Learner has the ability to design 3D Design simulations or games simulations and games for diverse audiences Learner has the ability to share project work Share or exhibit work/findings to broader global and findings with peers across their learning community classroom or across the world There have been a number of notable higher education projects and simulations in Second Life since its inception, yet there is still room for greater penetration in STEM or integrated STEM learning approaches, particularly those designed for secondary students. Illustratively, as one looks to the literature there are examples of empirical work on teaching and learning mathematics in virtual worlds. Some studies suggest mathematics explorations in virtual worlds not only provide students visual information to see the mathematics logic (e.g., 3D geometric construction; Kaufmann & Schmalstieg, 2003) but also have the potential to increase students’ engagement and effectiveness in learning mathematics (Harrell et al., 2008). Affordances of Virtual Worlds & Virtual Reality 199 Illustrative virtual world project examples follow: The Knowledge for Algebra Teaching for Equity (KATE) project (https://kate.tamu.edu/) enriched the education of STEM teachers by using technologies like Second Life to provide preservice middle school mathematics teachers early teaching experiences that addressed topics in problem solving and equity. Preservice teachers engaged in a series of culturally relevant activities in Second Life throughout a semester-long course. The culminating project for the semester was for preservice teachers to design and lead lessons with a group of middle school student avatars in the KATE virtual classroom in Second Life (see Figures 1 and 2; Brown et al., 2011; Davis et al., 2018; Hao et al., 2020). Figure 1. Preservice teacher giving problem-solving lesson in Second Life Figure 2. Full KATE classroom view with bot avatars Oddprofessor’s Museum and Science Center and Oddprofessor’s Testing Center provide innovative examples of how physics students were immersed in hands-on PBL within elaborate instructor-designed virtual learning spaces in Second Life. The first author describes her experience as such: “as one (my avatar) walked around the Oddprofessor’s Testing Center for example, I was completely pulled in by well-designed experimentation areas and labs that can engage learners in a host of exercises or projects (e.g., interactive vector exercises or “level air track” experiments). As my avatar walked through the space, I was offered a notecard. The instructional notecard shared information like the Level Air Track was a model of a very common piece of physics education equipment used to model one-dimensional motion at constant speed.” The 200 Affordances of Virtual Worlds & Virtual Reality  air track does a good job of modeling frictionless motion over short distances. There were two photogates over the track (one red, one blue). Students were instructed to measure the time it took the glider to move between them. Similarly, Oddprofessor's Museum and Science Center housed an interactive virtual workshop for developing demonstrations in Newtonian mechanics for use in teaching physics. The Oddprofessor’s virtual learning spaces were very dynamic. It was akin to visiting a physics Disneyland with various facilities, museum buildings, labs, 3D models, and rich activity areas throughout, both inside and outside. Dr. K’s Chemistry Corner (see Figure 3) provided another powerful example of how Second Life has been used by students in a core introductory chemistry course to explore molecules. Prominent simulations in this space included The Molecule Game, The Chemist as Artist, and The Tower of VSEPR. The Molecule Game was designed for students to explore molecules in a 3D space. They can rotate the molecule to view it from different perspectives. This virtual space was designed to allow the learner to manipulate the molecules and link or unlink atoms to explore molecules in greater detail (Merchant et al., 2012). Merchant et al. (2012) further described The Molecule Game as allowing students the opportunity to view molecules with their bond angles from various perspectives, among other learning tasks. Learners were able to use the zoom in and zoom out features in Second Life to gain multiple views. They were able to readily examine bond relationships between atoms within a molecule using different capabilities within SL; this included rotating and manipulating various molecules. The Chemist as an Artist was also designed to further develop students’ ability to see molecules from various vantage points in an immersive environment. Learners were able to photograph themselves next to different orientations of the molecules (using the SL Snapshot feature). They also constructed two- dimensional drawings (representations) of the various orientations. Figure 3. Activity stations in Dr. K’s Chemistry Corner Affordances of Virtual Worlds & Virtual Reality 201  Virtual Reality Affordances We offer here a brief overview of virtual reality and its affordances. A bit more widely used than virtual worlds, virtual reality technology has progressed incrementally. Generally, virtual reality interaction is supported by a tracking system that can be incorporated into a head- mounted display and/or hand controls, which can be specialized gloves or some sort of hand- held controller. Recently, immersive virtual reality has become more broadly distributed, and an inflection point was reached in 2014 when Oculus VR was purchased by Facebook. Today there is almost a universal consensus that immersive virtual reality as a technology is not a passing fad; now it has the potential to have more penetration in the computing technology landscape. Learning affordances in virtual reality by way of simulations, expeditions, and tours are supported by the premise of embodied cognition and the fact that the learning process can be shaped by our physical interaction with the world (Shapiro & Stolz, 2019; Shapiro, 2014). Virtual expeditions, for example, built on existing theory, such as the genesis of geomorphological features in the geosciences (Klippel et al., 2020) and the internal anatomy and function of biological cell organelles (Bennett & Saunders, 2019), allow for manipulation and interaction with environments that are experientially out of reach. The combination of both the virtual and real-world environments enhances and supports student collaboration. In the KEPLER ISS project, an expeditioner in the virtual world communicates with an expedition leader in the real world, and together they work to reach target areas to map with virtual measuring tools (Lindner et al., 2019). Notably, by studying emerging patterns of sociocultural norms during collaborative virtual reality tasks, researchers observed that students developed self-direction, self-motivation, empowerment, and problem-solving logic (Morales et al., 2013), making particular virtual reality software ideal for use in PBL. Virtual Reality Project Examples In this section, we begin by outlining some features of virtual reality and their potential for supporting STEM PBL. We then highlight projects that utilize virtual reality across STEM disciplines that engage learners in various ways. These projects help to illustrate the uniqueness and potential for adopting virtual reality applications to support PBL. 202 Affordances of Virtual Worlds & Virtual Reality  Table 2 Features of Virtual Reality to Support STEM PBL Sample Features of Virtual Reality Possibilities to Support STEM PBL Allow for manipulation and interaction with Learner has the ability to access resources environments that are experientially out of that are not typically available or cost reach effective Enhance and support student collaboration Learner develops self-directed learning and problem-solving skills; learner has the ability to transfer skills and knowledge through peer engagement Virtual measuring tools Learner has the ability to measure structures from a distance in collaboration with an onsite team Virtual dissections and 3D models Learner has the ability to dissect and reconstruct biological structures and engineering/design products to understand internal mechanisms while maintaining ethical considerations Immersive design/artwork Learner has the ability to engage in creative work, inquiry, and design thinking to recreate and explain scientific or complex phenomena Reasoning and kinesthetic activity pairing Learner has the ability to more easily recall prior knowledge through a concrete action metaphor Design of personal vision of self Learner has the ability to self-motivate and create self-interventions to positively affect identity as a learner in STEM Recreating distance Learner has the ability to develop spatial skills Illustrative virtual reality project examples follow: Google’s Tiltbrush tool (https://www.tiltbrush.com/) was adapted for an instructor- developed PBL project that situates college-level anatomy and physiology students within an empty, 3D canvas in virtual reality. Students work collaboratively to create a visual representation of a scientific phenomenon, a teacher-guided but student-led task that requires students to work together to plan, design, and build a virtual image within Tiltbrush. Utilizing hand controllers that simulate paint brushes, students draw in the 3D space using different colors and textures. The task requires students to think critically to Affordances of Virtual Worlds & Virtual Reality 203  express and interpret the level of their conceptual understanding. The extra dimension forces students to expound upon the two-dimensional images typically found in learning resources. In a similar study in the field of engineering education, students visualized a car engine and demonstrated its working parts in virtual reality. It was found students developed the ability to envision and manipulate abstract ideas and gain deeper understanding of the concepts (Morales et al., 2013). The social context of the learning environment allowed the transfer of skills and knowledge between advanced and novice students. Students’ verbal interactions revealed an increase in content-related vocabulary articulation as well as a stronger impetus for actively filling knowledge gaps through questions and self-directed learning (Hernandez Valencia, 2018). Figure 4 depicts a student taking his turn adding to his group’s interpretation of the process of endochondral ossification. The headset and hand controllers enable him to draw in three dimensions within the virtual space. His group is helping to guide and make sure he adheres to their agreed-upon plan as they simultaneously watch what he sees from a computer screen. Students are able to simultaneously watch their group member’s field of view as they draw in the virtual space (Figure 5). Figure 4. Anatomy and physiology students Figure 5. Students simultaneously watch engaged in Tiltbrush virtual reality activity their group member’s field of view - The Embodied Learning Augmented Through Simulation Theaters for Interacting with Cross-Cutting Concepts in Science (ELASTIC3S) project (https://elastics.education.illinois.edu/) provides a virtual reality platform that supports the relationship between kinesthetic activity and science reasoning, an additional channel through which learning transfer may occur. The ELASTIC3S simulation involves students defining personal arm gestures that are conceptually related to basic quantitative functions. The intuitive gestures are read by a Microsoft Kinect V2 camera that translates them into additive or multiplicative operations, facilitating the connection between concrete representations and abstract concepts. The environment allows students to construct a concrete action that will later serve as a metaphor they can draw from when recalling prior knowledge (Lindgren et al., 2019). 204 Affordances of Virtual Worlds & Virtual Reality New models of immersive learning incorporate education constructs in the areas of expectancy beliefs, value beliefs, and self-efficacy. In a 2019 study by Starr et al. in which female participants experienced a personalized virtual office that reflected the participant’s successful future career in STEM fields, the virtual experience was conceived as a self-intervention tool for decreasing stereotype threat and increasing STEM motivation. In a recent study by Safadel and White (2020), researchers used Adobe Captivate and Blender to create 3D molecules that students viewed and manipulated in the virtual space. The heightened experience of interacting with the 3D macromolecules led to a focus on how spatial ability affects students’ satisfaction and perception regarding learning. In engineering education, 3D software and applications can be adapted to explore constructs such as student learning and self-efficacy as well as address instructional and resource constraints. Using the tool eDrawings (https://www.edrawingsviewer.com/), which currently fully supports virtual reality, Toh et al. (2015) created an animated exploded view of detailed 3D models of mechanical products. The design features afforded section views, part transparency, and virtual tools, such as pliers and screwdrivers, that can be used by students. Students virtually dissected an electric toothbrush and milk frother to better understand their build and design and were free to choose from the set of tools available within the virtual space. The task allowed for deeper understanding of part connectivity and the internal mechanisms of the products, and results pointed to the potential for virtual product dissection to increase sustainability while reducing the cost, time, and effort required to physically dissect complex products. These particular dissections can be accomplished in two and three dimensions; however, when executed within the virtual reality platform, the design’s capabilities expand to include visible feedback and gesture-based control, ultimately increasing the interactivity of virtual dissection environments (Toh et al., 2015). A similar learning experience in which students virtually dissect and reconstruct detailed 3D models of cadavers from anatomical slices additionally addresses practical and ethical issues (Zorzal et al., 2019). Conclusion It is difficult not to conclude this chapter without considering the COVID-19 pandemic that we find ourselves in. It is likely that the inequities and opportunity gaps in STEM learning for some PreK–12 and post-secondary learners will be exacerbated during various phases of the COVID- 19 pandemic and subsequent periodic moves to emergency remote/online learning. New realities from the pandemic have the potential to merely amplify the issues brought to bear from the TALR study findings described earlier (Seymour & Hunter, 2019). A particularly encouraging realization relates to the work described in this chapter. We hope that we have stimulated Affordances of Virtual Worlds & Virtual Reality 205 readers’ thoughts on the promise that employing virtual worlds and virtual reality in the design of STEM PBL offers. Notwithstanding, to truly design experiences where learners gain foundational, meta, and humanistic knowledge requires a re-imagining of the substance of STEM education. We also hope that the work highlighted here demonstrates different approaches to technology-enhanced and online learning that can be active rather than passive, where engaging learners in inquiry, experimentation, or even play through an online format enables learning that is not compromised but rather transformative. Moreover, we offer that the affordances and illustrative examples highlighted here can provide ideas of what is possible when virtual exploratory spaces are designed and utilized to support STEM PBL. Among the benefits we have presented, virtual worlds and virtual reality support learners as they engage in projects with particular tasks and learning outcomes. Perhaps the most unique aspect of virtual experiential learning spaces is the opportunity they afford students to “see themselves” as STEM professionals (e.g., scientists, engineers, designers, mathematicians, analysts). Now more than ever we should leverage these spaces to extend the possibilities of how, where, and to what extent learners can engage in authentic STEM PBL activities that are both effective and transformative. Reflection Questions and Activities 1. In reflecting on the chapter, what are some unique ways that virtual reality features can support STEM PBL (discuss at least two features)? 2. Discuss one of the virtual world or virtual reality projects that were highlighted in the chapter. Share something that you connected with about the project or a key take-away that you have. 3. True or False: a) Findings from the Talking About Leaving Revisited study included a discussion of how students defined “good” STEM teaching, which included rote learning and inquiry-based learning. ______ b) Virtual worlds can be utilized to prepare STEM teachers and to learn STEM content in highly participatory ways. ______ c) Learners can engage in simulations to support experiential learning in both virtual worlds and virtual reality. ______ d) Learners can collaborate with peers and experts in both virtual worlds and virtual reality settings. ______ e) Simulations of scientific experimentation can be conducted in virtual reality settings. ______ f) PBL is facilitated by more passive learning in virtual worlds and virtual reality. ______ g) 3D VLEs can be used to facilitate learning tasks that may lead to improved transfer of knowledge and skills to real situations through contextualization of learning. ______ Key: F, T, T, T, T, F, T 206 Affordances of Virtual Worlds & Virtual Reality  Further Readings Abdullah, J., Mohd-Isa, W. N., & Samsudin, M.A. (2019). Virtual reality to improve group work skill and self-directed learning in problem-based learning narratives. Virtual Reality, 23, 461–471. Koutsabasis, P., & Vosinakis, S. (2012). Rethinking HCI education for design: problem-based learning and virtual worlds at an HCI design studio. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 28(8), 485–499. Mantziou, O., Papachristos, N. M. & Mikropoulos, T. A. (2018). Learning activities as enactments of learning affordances in MUVEs: A review-based classification. Education and Information Technologies, 23, 1737–1765. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9690-x Morales, T. M., Bang, E., & Andre, T. (2013). A one-year case study: Understanding the rich potential of project-based learning in a virtual reality class for high school students. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(5), 791–806. References Bell, M. W. (2008). Toward a definition of “virtual worlds.” Journal of Virtual Worlds Research, 1(1), 1–5. Bennett, J. A., & Saunders, C. P. (2019). A virtual tour of the cell: Impact of virtual reality on student learning and engagement in the STEM classroom. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 20(2). https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v20i2.1658 Bressoud, D. (2020). Talking about leaving revisited: Persistence, relocation, and loss in undergraduate STEM education [Review of the book Talking about leaving revisited: Persistence, relocation, and loss in undergraduate STEM education, by E. Seymour & A. Hunter]. Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 67(9), 1375–1378. Brown, I. A., Davis, T. J., & Kulm, G. (2011). Preservice teachers' knowledge for teaching algebra for equity in the middle grades: A preliminary report. Journal of Negro Education, 80, 266–283. Capraro, R. M., & Slough, S. W. (2008). Why PBL? Why STEM? Why now? An introduction to project- based learning: An integrated science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) approach. In R. M. Capraro & S. W. Slough (Eds.), STEM Project-based learning: An integrated science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) approach (pp. 1–6). Sense. Caprotti, O., & Seppala, M. (2007). Mathematics education in Second Life. Proceedings of the Open Classroom Conference, 6. Dalgarno, B., & Lee, M. J. (2010). What are the learning affordances of 3-D virtual environments? British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1), 10–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- 8535.2009.01038.x Davis, T. J. (2014). Mathematics learning in virtual worlds: Affordances and accessibility. In C. R. Reynolds, K. J. Vannest, & E. Fletcher-Janzen (Eds.), Encyclopedia of special education: A reference for the education of children, adolescents, and adults with disabilities and other exceptional individuals (4th ed., p. 1630). John Wiley and Sons. Davis, T. J., Phillips, G. A., & Kulm, G. (2018). Creativity and the design of music-mathematics activities in a virtual simulation learning environment. In V. Freiman & J. Tassell (Eds.), Creativity and technology in mathematics education (pp. 181–202). Springer. Affordances of Virtual Worlds & Virtual Reality 207 Goodband, J., Bhakta, R., & Lawson, D. (n.d.). Exploiting new technologies in mathematics support. Centre for Excellence in Mathematics and Statistics Support, Faculty of Engineering and Computing, Coventry University. Hao, H., Kulm, G., & Davis, T. (2020). Self-reflection on engagement in virtual classrooms as the dual role: An Asian woman graduate student and middle-grade girl avatar in STEM. In B. Polnick, B. Irby, & J. Ballenger (Eds.), Girls and women of color: Their journeys in higher education. Information Age Publishing. Harper, R. P., Weston, T. J., & Seymour, E. (2019). Students’ perceptions of good STEM teaching. In E. Seymour & A.-B. Hunter (Eds.), Talking about Leaving Revisited: Persistence, relocation, and loss in undergraduate STEM education (pp. 245–276). Springer. Harrell, S. V., Abrahamson, D., Morgado, L., Valcke, M., Vansteenburugge, H., & Rosenbaum, E. (2008). Virtually there: Emerging design for STEM teaching and learning in immersive online 3D microworlds. Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences, 8, 383–391. Hernandez Valencia, M. (2019, October). Building STEM knowledge through sketching in virtual reality [Paper presentation]. Southwest Association for Science Teacher Education Conference, Fayetteville, AR, United States. Hew, K.F., & Cheung, W.S. (2010). Use of three-dimensional (3-D) immersive virtual worlds in K–12 and higher education settings: A review of the research. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1), 22–55. Jones, K. (1982). Simulations in language teaching. Cambridge University Press. Kaufmann, H., & Schmalstieg, D. (2003). Mathematics and geometry education with collaborative augmented reality. Computer & Graphics, 27, 339–345. Kereluik, K., Mishra, P., Fahnoe, C., & Terry, L. (2013). What knowledge is of most worth: Teacher knowledge for 21st century learning. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 29(4), 127–140 Klippel, A., Zhao, J., Oprean, D., Wallgrün, J. O., Stubbs, C., La Femina, P., & Jackson, K. L. (2020). The value of being there: Toward a science of immersive virtual field trips. Virtual Reality, 24, 753– 770. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-019-00418-5 Lindgren, R., Morphew, J., Kang, J., & Junokas, M. (2019). An embodied cyberlearning platform for gestural interaction with cross-cutting science concepts. Mind, Brain, and Education, 13(1), 53–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/mbe.12191 Lindner, C., Ortwein, A., Hodam, H., Jurgens, C., Schultz, J., Selg, F., & Rienow, A. (2019). Using ISS Earth observation in augmented and virtual reality to reach the next generation of the STEM workforce. International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, 2019, 4300–4303. https://doi.org/10.1109/IGARSS.2019.8899262 Mantziou, O., Papachristos, N. M. & Mikropoulos, T. A. (2018). Learning activities as enactments of learning affordances in MUVEs: A review-based classification. Education and Information Technologies, 23, 1737–1765. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9690-x Merchant, Z., Goetz, E., Keeney-Kennicutt, W., Kwok, O., Cifuentes, L., & Davis, T. (2012). The features of desktop 3D virtual reality environments, learner characteristics, and college chemistry instruction. Computers & Education, 59, 551–568. 208 Affordances of Virtual Worlds & Virtual Reality Merchant, Z., Goetz, E., Keeney-Kennicutt, W., Kwok, O., Cifuentes, L., & Davis, T. J. (2013). Exploring 3-D virtual reality technology for spatial ability and chemistry achievement. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(6), 579–590. Merchant, Z., Goetz, E., Keeney-Kennicutt, W., Kwok, O., Cifuentes, L., & Davis, T. J. (2014). Effectiveness of virtual reality-based instruction on students' learning outcomes in K–12 and higher education: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 70, 29–40. Mishra, P., Anbar, A., Scragg, B., & Ragan, L. (2020). Developing the future substance of STEM education: A concept paper. Arizona State University. https://d32ogoqmya1dw8.cloudfront.net/files/stemfutures/substance-of-stem-education- concept-paper-2.pdf Morales, T. M., Bang, E., & Andre, T. (2013). A one-year case study: Understanding the rich potential of project-based learning in a virtual reality class for high school students. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(5), 791–806. Office of Educational Technology (2018). Innovation spotlights: Nine dimensions for supporting powerful STEM learning with technology. U.S. Department of Education. Safadel, P., & White, D. (2020). Effectiveness of computer-generated virtual reality (VR) in learning and teaching environments with spatial frameworks. Applied Sciences, 10(16), Article 5438. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10165438 Scarcella, R., & Oxford, R. L. (1992). The tapestry of language learning: The individual in the communicative classroom. Heinle & Heinle. Scheurich, J. J. & Higgins, K. (2008). Preface. In R. M. Capraro & S. W. Slough (Eds.), STEM Project-based learning: An integrated science technology engineering and mathematics (STEM) approach (pp. 1–6). Sense. Seymour, E., & Hewitt, N. M. (1997). Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the sciences. Avalon. Seymour, E., & Hunter, A.-B. (Eds.). (2019). Talking about leaving revisited: Persistence, relocation, and loss in undergraduate STEM education. Springer. Shapiro, L. (Ed.). (2014). The Routledge handbook of embodied cognition. Routledge. Shapiro, L., & Stolz, S. A. (2019). Embodied cognition and its significance for education. Theory and Research in Education, 17(1), 19–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878518822149 Starr, C. R., Anderson, B. R., & Green, K. A. (2019). “I’m a computer scientist!”: Virtual reality experience influences stereotype threat and STEM motivation among undergraduate women. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 28(5), 493–507. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019- 09781-z Toh, C., Miller, S., & Simpson, T. (2015). The impact of virtual product dissection environments on student design learning and self-efficacy. Journal of Engineering Design, 26(1–3), 48–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2015.1018149 Tompkins, P. K. (1998). Role playing/simulation. The Internet TESL Journal, 4(8), 143–150. Wright, W. (1989). SimCity [Computer software]. Maxis. Zorzal, E. R., Sousa, M., Mendes, D., dos Anjos, R. K., Medeiros, D., Paulo, S. F., Rodrigues, P., Mendes, J. J., Delmas, V., Uhl, J.-F., Mogorrón, J., Jorge, J. A., Simões, J., Jorge, J. A., Lopes, D. S. (2019). Anatomy Studio: A tool for virtual dissection through augmented 3D reconstruction. Computers and Graphics (Pergamon), 85, 74–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cag.2019.09.006 Affordances of Virtual Worlds & Virtual Reality 209